Wednesday, July 13, 2011, by Richard A. Micallef, Ta' l-Ibraġ
In his comment of July 2, Martin Scicluna wrote once again in his regular diatribes against the Archbishop and the Church.
How insolent to accuse the Archbishop of displaying "the brazen self-delusion of a politician who has been roundly defeated". The Archbishop has the right to express his and the Church's teachings. The referendum passed, so why does Mr Scicluna persist in demanding a pound of flesh and the blood too?
He accuses the Church of crossing over a red line. This red line, I understood, meaning that the Archbishop has to be limited by how much he can express the Church's teachings. He furthermore states quite confusingly that "this is unacceptable in a liberal, secular, pluralistic parliamentary democracy... If the law happens to coincide with the Church's specific teachings it is because the law reflects some value independent of religious belief – whether it be on divorce, IVF treatment, euthanasia, birth control, abortion or gay rights''.
If this were the red line that was crossed over by the Maltese Church in the referendum campaign, then, what red line is Mr Scicluna toeing if the Church will be limited by a new Concordat when the issues he referred to come up for parliamentary discussion?
Maybe he will suggest that important matters such as abortion and euthanasia be referred to the more plebeian referendums and for good measure throw in the image of the French revolution with the Madame LaFarge mannerisms and mentality, which is quite evident on a popular Friday programme!
Who needs a Parliament then? The people would have decided while chopping off heads of anyone professing a Christian morality.
[Click on the hyperlink above to view the comments on the Times' website.]